|
→"Oh, the humanity!": new section
|
|
||
| Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
==Living survivors?== |
==Living survivors?== |
||
'''Are there any left? I was going to guess at least one or two....? Anyone know? Any yes, I do want an answer on this, since no one answered it in 2009. HELLO!! --[[Special:Contributions/76.105.145.143|76.105.145.143]] ([[User talk:76.105.145.143|talk]]) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)''' |
'''Are there any left? I was going to guess at least one or two....? Anyone know? Any yes, I do want an answer on this, since no one answered it in 2009. HELLO!! --[[Special:Contributions/76.105.145.143|76.105.145.143]] ([[User talk:76.105.145.143|talk]]) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)''' |
||
:If you wait long enough you can be certain that the answer is no. [[Special:Contributions/86.160.222.156|86.160.222.156]] ([[User talk:86.160.222.156|talk]]) 20:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== "Oh, the humanity!" == |
== "Oh, the humanity!" == |
||
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 6, 2004, May 6, 2005, and May 6, 2006. |
I recommend the book Engineering Disasters: Lessons to be Learned by Don Lawson. Its first chapter deals with the Hindenburg disaster from the lens of an engineer reviewing design flaws. There is a wealth of information listed in addition to the many potential causes of the blaze and crash. This data includes technical facts about the zeppelin such as speed, weight, hydrogen and other material capacity, and more. As it also breaks down the post-crash investigation from both American and German sides, it is definitely worth a look for anyone interested in learning more. Socrates90 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the whole article focuses FAR too much on the disaster. I believe that a separate article for the disaster would be a good move. To me, the article deserves a lower rating for its overfocus on the disaster. Frankyboy5 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not unusual for owners of automatics to leave one spent cartridge in the chamber as a safety precaution precluding accidental discharge[19]." This is insane, and I think it should be removed. It not unusual for owners of automatics to leave the chamber EMPTY. Furthermore, this doesn't really make since with he whole suicide theory (it neither supports or discounts it) and the reference is merely a person's name. 68.117.144.130 (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "aircraft_type" parameter in {{Infobox Aircraft accident}} is consistently used throughout Wikipedia to mean the specific type of aircraft involved (egBoeing 747), not its general "class" (eg "Multi-engine jetliner"). I've therefore replaced the generic "Zeppelin rigid airship" in this field with Hindenburg-class airship - the specific type of aircraft involved in the incident. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The airship had already made one round trip from Germany to Brazil that year." Our article on the Hindenburg herself states that the ill-fated flight was the first of the 1937 season of operations. Was there an earlier flight to Brazil that year? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hydrogen Theory of the article suggests that the fire could not have been started by the varnish because it requires a very hot ignition source which would be 'impossible'. But it is a well known fact that the ignition source for the Hindenburg was static electricity (essentially lightning, a form of ignition hotter than the surface of the sun) built up by travel through the air and failing to drop wires to safely release that electricity into the ground.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.234.172 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow substance mentioned in the sabotage section was tested by the FBI and wasn't sulfur. The article cited the FBI report incorrectly. Dfarel (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was later determined to be sulphur... Frankyboy5 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection to moving to Hindenburg accident? I'm finding "disaster" a little "newsie". "Disaster" suggests 100s died, or an earthquake, not a fire & less than 50 dead. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article now says the accident led to the end of the "airship era". I've heard (just don't ask where ;)) it was the media coverage (including live radio, & esp film) that did it, not the accident per se. Maybe I'm splitting hairs (& I wouldn't begin to know how to source it), but does this bear mentioning? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clear to me in the article, but clarify if you want. I don't see how you can sepperate the two events though, given that they are in a causal chain of events. Would you say that the fact that people had their radios on was the real problem, not the news? Or the fact that they had ears? Or that they had brains? All were causes, as the industry would not have suffered so but for each thing I've mentioned, but only one event was unusual, akin to an experimental variable, and that was the accident- not the presence of ears or newsreporters reporting.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A conspiracy that is missed is the potential for the accidental triggering of the explosion by testing of Microwave Radar by First Signal Corp prior to exhibition.
According to the Sandy Shore Radar Report (sourced as: Slattery, Oral Interview, June 2001) 'The date was May 6, 1937 and the May demonstration had not yet occurred. The objective of this test recalls Slattery was to track the German Zeppelin Von Hindenburg as it approached the coastline en route to Naval Air Station Lakehurst. At around noon, prior to testing a storm approached and drenched the equipment rendering it inoperable. A few hours later at 7:25pm the Hindenburg caught fire and was destroyed as it made its mooring attempt in Lakehurst. This was a blessing in disguise for Slattery and Hessel. The following day the New York Times reported that German radio engineers, “aboard to listen for strange signals” were among the passengers on that flight. Slattery recalled that the RPF radar project’s “secret” classification was almost compromised that day had it not been for the storm which postponed the testing'
While indeed it's stated that the Radar equipment was "inoperable", I'm pretty sure that if they had been the cause they wouldn't likely have come forwards, after all it was a secret project being used to detect potential threats seen as Germans and the Hindenberg just happened to catch fire. --Stryderunknown (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this article spend an inordinate amount of time on fringe theories? Surely nobody can take seriously the proposition that it wasn't actually the hydrogen that was burning? Or that the mushroom cloud was not the hydrogen? This is just madness! Perhaps split to a separate article like Moon Landing Conspiracy, but surely that would just be a POV fork. I'd advocate a major cleanup. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can one of the veteran editors check this article? It looks like there is some vandalism inside--note at the end of Historic Newsreel Coverage section:
"Kyle Treadwell, the cook on board, saved many guys in the ship, including seven children and 6 ladies. He was later awarded a medal from the president and awarded roughly 2.3 million for his good deeds."
This sounds *somewhat* suspicious.
Q.T.Quazar (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Q.T.Quazar[reply]
Seems to be more: last sentence of the first paragraph explaining the cause of the explosion, and the use of "pooop" in the image description.
Kevinkace (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does this sentence mean? In seems incomplete: "7:19: the airship made the second sharp turn and valved 300, 300 and 500 kg of water ballast in successive drops because the airship was stern heavy. Six men (four were killed in the accident." 217.111.104.103 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The US had previously vetoed the sale of helium because they were worried by the German technology competing with their domestic offerings and especially alarmed by Hitler's aggressive politics.
The Hindenburg, along with other airships had recently dropped election leaflets in Germany, and Hitler gained around 99% of the votes in that election.
Dr. Hugo Eckener, head of the company, was at odds with Hitler and was soon deprived of his citizenship, so the "B" team took over.
The fire was a gift to US the propaganda industry, meanwhile the Germans ran with sabotage theories. In war, truth is always the first casualty.
More recent work seems to suggest a technical crew was inside the frame, surrounded by gasbags, and actually dealing with an engine problem at the time of the fire.
Political pressure upon them probably caused anxiety. Did it also provoke risk-taking and eventually "finger trouble"....
Sorry this is only my recollection from long ago. I do not have any references for this. But it might perhaps help interested researchers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.150.66 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inconsistancy between too mentions of the first flame. One section (First Hints) says that, uncited, it is a common misconception among experts to believe that the fire started near the tail fin while another (the disaster)states that this is a possible location for the first fire according to witnesses and that the location of origination is unknown. Clearly mutually exclusive. Also the parts about experts knowing such and such and that being wronged needs a citation.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) I agree completely that the first flame information is retarded. I added a "lacks inline sources" tag at the top of the page, and I added "this section needs sources" tags to first hints and disaster, and a "who?" tag to the experts remark. I think those tags are necessary to point out to readers that the information may quite possibly be a single person's opinion, presented as unsourced "witness" statements and the like. I'd add even more, especially "citation needed" ones but if I did it to every statement that needed it, the article would be twice as long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.185.228 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2) To me, it seemed at first as if the article in its current state was acceptable and approved, when the discussion page has many issues listed. I say shred the thing. Every time it says "witnesses said", it needs a "Citation needed" or a source. Every time it says "experts" it needs a "Who?". And why is the schedule of the ship as well as the entire timeline section presented without a single citation, or a single "citation needed"? This article honestly looks like someone watched a Discovery or History channel special and took all that unverified research as gospel. Surely there are enough books and articles on this subject that whoever put this information in can cite their sources, and their opinions can be clarified. If opinions and witness statements can not be clarified, then I think they need the "citation needed" tag to point out that lack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.185.228 (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've ever really looked into the Hindenburg disaster; how did anyone survive?!? I assumed that everyone died. The whole thing was engulfed in flame and it was falling rapidly; the people were all underneath it; so how did over half the people live? Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point with the numbers in the infobox. One of the people that died was a ground crew. People on board were 36 passengers and 61 crew = 97. there were 61 survivors and 36 fatalities = 97. but if one of the fatalities is a ground crew why do the numbers match. It should be one more. Or is this ground crew member one of the 61 crew, even though there are presumably many more ground crew also. It is unclear. Anyone understand me? Carlwev (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the dog that was on board? 79.66.107.109 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is said in the article:『German acrobat named Joseph Späh, who survived the fire. He brought with him a dog, a German shepherd named Ulla, as a surprise for his children. (Ulla did not survive.)』217.111.104.103 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment in the disscusion page of St. Elmo's fire --Anonymous07921 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 7:19 entry on the timeline doesn't make sense to a casual visitor such as me. It doesn't follow on after "six men" in the first line. Dalliance (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be all right for me to add a little blurb in the disaster section mentioning that the Hindenburg had been designed to use helium but was forced to use hydrogen as a result of the embargo? --170.28.221.3 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When hydrogen burns in oxygen it produces water, right? So I wonder how much of it was produced when the Hindenburg went kaboom. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once came upon a piece of the "Hindenburg". I grew up in New Jersey, and my middle-school science teacher apparently had a piece of it, which he handed around to everyone in class or at least showed it. It wasn't very big, about a half-an-arm's length of metal with holes of different sizes punched in it, but it was interesting to gawk at. I wonder if there are any other pieces of the erstwhile zeppelin out there. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the wreck was ever shipped back to Germany. It was loaded on trucks and taken to a metal scrapyard in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. The United States even sent Germany a bill for the clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.254.255 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very doubtful about the statement that just six days before the disaster that the U.S. Navy was involved in trying to assist in an aerial hook experiment involving the Hindenberg. When and where would this have taken place? For three days the airship was in transit across the Atlantic, and I find it highly unlikely that the U.S. Navy would have been involved in Germany in such a trial, just before the airship was due to begin its North American trip season. This sounds like unsupported speculation. Mark Sublette (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk)[reply]
One note is that in 1935 a helium filled blimp with an acetate aluminium skin burned near Point Sur in California with equal ferocity.[1] Even the USS Macon, a U.S. Navy airship, burned after crashing into the Pacific off Monterey Bay. [clarification needed] Those who disagree with these claims insist these two incidents had nothing to do with the dope, instead the small blimp burned because of a fuel leak, and the Macon burned because it was firing flares.
The above paragraph, taken directly from the article, uses the USS Macon to justify its point. I have never seen ANYTHING that said that the Macon burned. It suffered failure of the tail section due to unfinished repairs, loss of lifting gas from damaged cells, and sank into the Pacific. Furthermore, the statement is all the more dubious in that it describes the Macon as a "blimp", which is was not. It was a rigid airship. I suggest that this paragraph is fatally flawed as an argument or as a statement of facts. Mark Sublette (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These statements were made by Dessler et. al to counter Bain's claims that the dope is flammable. While I find these claims ridiculous they were stated by the people against hte IPT. The two incidents are not the same. Bain was referring to a small blimp in California. Frankyboy5 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the space of a few lines times are given both as "7:25 p.m." and "7:25pm". I know I've used both of these formats and probably several others, but can anyone report on what the wikipedia standard is? Thanks. PurpleChez (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to go ahead and add the cleanup template to the page. There's a lot of citations needed and a general restructuring is in order. Hope no one minds. Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After voluminous amounts of dialogue/diatribe on the issue, most editors in the WP:Aviation group would assign D/M/Y dating to this article to recognize the subject's national origin. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In section Incendiary paint hypothesis the second paragraph makes offtopical synthish somersaults:
Good! Then
Bad!! Removal recommended!! (This presents a pretty ridiculous discourse). Then next edit indicates some other editor killing that out-of-the blue speculation:
Good! Keep! The "in fact" sentence should be removed in such a way so that the argument of the acceptable statements are not disturbed, but it needs consideration. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
InPuncture hypothesis there are two contradictory sentences: "But Eckener knew that he was to blame as much as anyone else, for in 1928 he decided against using helium offered by the US government for economic reasons.[22] Not true that Eckener was to blame because of a decision he made in 1928" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.112.119 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any left? I was going to guess at least one or two....? Anyone know? Any yes, I do want an answer on this, since no one answered it in 2009. HELLO!! --76.105.145.143 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it suggested that he does not say "Oh, the humanity!" but "All the humanity". When you listen to the recording it could be either, but the fact that he appears to continue "... and all the passengers" gives weight to this theory. Is there any proof that he really said "Oh"? The article says that the transcription, including the "Oh, the humanity!" line, is "as transcribed for broadcast by WLS radio", but I am not clear what that means. Why would you "transcribe" an unscripted commentary for audio broadcast? 86.160.222.156 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
